In the 1760s, William Blackstone wrote in his masterpiece:Annotated English Law,“It is better that ten guilty people escape than that one innocent person suffer,” he wrote.
This statement, known as the Blackstone Formula, became a maxim in the British legal system and a fundamental principle in the American legal system.
Something that came to mind when I read the Supreme Court’s recent decision was the practice of excusing the bad behavior of others in order to ensure fairness and protection for those who act in good faith. decision Regarding presidential immunity.
courtfoundThe President is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within his core constitutional powers. Courts have also held that the President enjoys a presumption of immunity with respect to his official duties. There is no such presumption with respect to unofficial acts.
Critics were quick to denounce the decision as a presidency.Above the LawThis decisionshieldIt seeks damages from former President Trump for actions related to the overturning of the 2020 election results and the January 6, 2021 riots.
Supreme Court rulings over the past few years have Public trust and goodwill The number of justices on the Supreme Court is at an all-time low, and this decision, rightly or not, raises further concerns about the ethics and political motivations of some of its justices.
Court imagery aside, I look at this case a little differently: At the most basic level, the court is simply saying that the Constitution, the rule of law, gives and always has given the president this protection.
While it is true that this lawsuit was brought in retaliation for the actions of former President Trump, the court appeared to be aiming for a known standard to ensure that not only President Trump but future presidents are protected as they carry out their official duties.
Or like Justice Neil Gorsuch. put it“We’re writing rules that will stand the test of time.”
With all due respect, I hope the court will consider the facts of this case with an eye to future cases and then render its decision.
Most people with substantial experience in the federal executive branch agree that a president must be able to make difficult and controversial decisions without fear of criminal prosecution, but I don’t know of any current or former official who can give us even one example of a president who was prevented from taking the bold action necessary to protect the country by fear of prosecution by a successor administration.
Moreover, I share concerns that, based on the court’s reasoning, it will be difficult to prosecute wrongdoings committed by unscrupulous presidents motivated by political ambition, power and money.
For example, the court clearly stated stated Courts cannot inquire into the President’s motives when determining which conduct was official or unofficial. Motive and intent are basic components of a regular criminal prosecution. held To determine whether conduct is informal, it is not enough that the President has violated a law of general application.
I respectfully question aspects of this ruling. Courts naturally do not want to investigate or speculate on the motives behind presidential decisions. But this restriction would seem to allow a president to offer a pardon in exchange for money, for example — a clear exercise of constitutional power. Such actions, while morally wrong, could be difficult to prosecute. And unfortunately, as we saw in the case of former President Trump, the possibility of impeachment and removal from office is unlikely to act as a deterrent.
It’s no wonder that some legal commentators believe this ruling allows presidents, particularly President Donald Trump, to escape responsibility for criminal offenses.
Applying the Court’s reasoning, it is clear that a president’s character and integrity matter as much as his or her wisdom, judgment, and vision. The job of American voters has just become more important and more difficult.
Fortunately, the vast majority of our presidents, while not perfect, have been men of integrity and courage. As the Court has recognized, they and their successors deserve protection from criminal prosecution for carrying out core constitutional duties and official decisions, especially when acting on the advice of the Attorney General of the United States, presidential counsel, or other senior administration legal advisors.
Ironically, in the context of the prosecution of former President Trump, President Biden would be afforded additional protections under this decision if he is not re-elected this November. These protections would be even more important given that former President Trump has pledged retaliation against his political opponents if re-elected.
The Supreme CourtDominationThe official acts immunity is presumptive and not absolute given the circumstances, and it will take some time for courts to determine the appropriate scope of official acts.
Assuming that we, the people, choose wisely, I am fairly confident that this uncertainty will have little effect on future presidential decision-making.
There is still hope and reason to believe that our country is still a nation of laws. The Constitution, Congress, the states, and the courts still have their role in checking an out-of-control executive branch. The American people have always had, and will continue to have, the power, and no one should fear exercising that power, to punish candidates and parties who make or support decisions on Election Day for reasons other than the interests and justice of the American people.
The President must always be accountable for his decisions and actions.
Alberto R. Gonzales is a former U.S. Attorney General and Counsel to the President in the George W. Bush Administration.
